TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,58,740/- by treating the cash deposits made by the assessee in the saving bank account of Dena Bank as unexplained income without appreciating the fact that the said cash deposited in the bank was out of agriculture sale proceeds. The appellant prays that the addition may please be deleted. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the honorable CIT(A) has erred and is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,32,662/- as Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land without appreciating the fact that * the land under consideration is agriculture land which is not a Capital Asset and is exempt from tax. * the land under consideration is ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above notices and accordingly the assessment order was passed ex-parte determining the taxable income at Rs. 71,83,740/-. This amount consists of two additions first one represents unexplained cash of Rs. 31,58,740/- deposited in savings bank account and the second one Rs. 40,25,000/- represents income from long term capital gains on the sale of agricultural land. 4. Against the above ex-parte assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR submitted before us that the order passed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt quality of rose in poly house yield is more than Rs. 22,50,000/- per acre, per year in Maharashtra. In the same report it was also opined that production of rose on normal land (i.e. other than poly house) yields sale of Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre, per year. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that in support of agricultural land holdings and production of export quality rose, tomato and wheat, 7/12 extracts were produced before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but they were not found reliable, reason being not signed by Talati of the particular area. In this regard, ld. Counsel of the assessee furnished before us 7/12 extracts duly signed by the Talati of related area as an additional evidence. Later 7/12 extract copy downloaded from the Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....02.2011 an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- was deposited in the same bank account and prior to deposit of above amount, Rs. 7,85,000/- was withdrawn. Accordingly, it was contended that withdrawn amount was again deposited into the Bank. In support of this contention copy of bank account statement was produced before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, but ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not accepted the same. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further relied on various case laws wherein under similar circumstances, the estimation of agricultural income in the absence of bills and vouchers for sale of agricultural produce and receipt for expenses were estimated judiciously and the additions were deleted. In this regard, ld. AR relied on the following decisions :- (i) Smt. Ann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e consideration i.e. Rs. 40,25,000/- as the sale value and taxed the same without providing benefit of cost of acquisition etc. But in the remand report, the Assessing Officer has reported the Fair Market Value of the sold property i.e. at Rs. 56,65,000/- which is clear cut change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that once the assessing officer has opted full value of consideration as the sale value instead of FMV, he cannot change it in the remand report. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has also accepted FMV Rs. 56,65,000/- as the sale value of the property which is not correct & from this enhanced value cost of acquisition etc was allowed. It was submitted that the sale value once adopted by the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n.com 259 (Pune - Trib.). (ii) Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT, 209 ITR 946 (Bombay). (iii) Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs. CIT, 204 ITR 631 (SC). (iv) CIT vs. V.A. Trivedi, 172 ITR 95 (Bombay). (v) CIT vs. Siddharth J. Desai, 139 ITR 628 (Gujarat). 10. We have heard Ld. Counsel from both the sides and perused the material available on record including additional evidences furnished by the assessee and case laws relied on by both the parties. We find that the assessee has challenged addition of Rs. 31,58,540/- and determination of long term capital gain of Rs. 39,35,662/-. We find that in support of agricultural income the assessee has relied on statistical data report prepared by Professor of Economics Agr....